402 Nachilongo Doreen v. PP [2014] 5 MLRA [19] The first issue is the crux of the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant arrived in Malaysia on 23 February 2011 at 6.10am but only cleared the Immigration at 2.27pm. It is also not in dispute that the bag, P17 was not locked. [20] It was the submission of learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to explain what happened to this unlocked bag during the eight hours and who handled and managed this bag during the period when the appellant has yet to clear the immigration. There was also no evidence led by the prosecution to show proof of the bag’s weight when the appellant checked in at Johannesburg and the weight upon arrival in Malaysia. In short the appellant’s case is that the eight hours’ duration had created a gap in the prosecution’s case and that the prosecution has not proved custody and control of the bag P17. [21] On the second issue, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial judge had applied the wrong standard of proof, warranting the acquittal or retrial of the appellant. Learned counsel made reference to the grounds of judgment of the learned trial judge at the conclusion of the trial wherein the learned trial judge states: “Since the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against the acccused and she had not been able to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, the court found that the prosecution had proven her guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced her to the mandatory sentence of death.” [22] The basis of complaint by the appellant is that under s 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the test to be applied at the conclusion of the trial is whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas the learned trial judge had used the prima facie standard of proof which is the standard to be applied at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. [23] We found both issues raised by the appellant to be without merits. On the first issue, the defence was that the appellant was detained by the Immigration Authority for eight hours. Hence, it was submitted that the appellant could not collect the bag and since the bag P17 was not in the possession of the appellant for the duration of eight hours, somebody else could have planted the drugs in the unlocked bag. [24] Having perused the notes of proceedings, we find that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant was in fact detained by the Immigration Authority for eight hours. The Immigration Officer at KLIA (SP5), whilst agreeing that the appellant cleared the immigration point eight hours after her arrival and that she did not collect her bag until she was cleared by the Immigration, merely states: “Tidak ada dalam system dia telah ditahan selama lapan jam. Kalau ditahan pun tidak masuk dalam system. Tidak ada sebab dia ditahan sebab semua passport complete dan tiket pun ada. Passport valid.”